On Civil Status. The civil status of the respondents was needed as this would reflect the financial backup or support in store while research making. The researchers opted to include this as they assumed that for a married respondent, he could gain financial support from his own; while for a single respondent, from his family or immediate relative. The civil status profile would also mirror the level of dependence toward research making or purchasing of ready-made researches.
Civil Status of Respondents per School
As shown, the 10 respondents each from CNU, SWU, UC, and UP were all single. While UV had one (1) married respondent while nine (9) were single.
Figure 10 also shows that none of the respondents per school was a widow or widower.
Table 3
Civil Status of Respondents
| Civil Status | Total Frequency (F) | Percentage (%) |
| Single | 49 | 98% |
| Married | 1 | 2% |
| Widow/er | 0 | - |
| Total | 50 | 100% |
Table 3 shows that 49 respondents or 98% were single, and only one respondent covering the 2% was married.
However, no respondent was either a widow or widower, which suggested that almost all of the respondents were still not into a serious relationship; hence, a possibility that they were mostly independent, financially or otherwise, to their family or immediate relative.
On Educational Background. One of the essential financial determinants of this study, the educational background of the respondents would reflect their level of financial dependence. Not only that, this profile would also adhere to their academic level of perception toward research making and the possibility of purchasing ready-made researches.
Educational Background of Respondents per School
Figure 11 shows that nine (9) CNU respondents were full-time students while only one (1) was a scholar. Both SWU and UV sample respondents had nine (9) full-time students and one (1) working student, respectively. Eight (8) of the UC respondents were full-time students while two (2) were working scholars. Lastly, all of the UP respondents were full-time students. However, none of the respondents per school was a professional or a student who already had a business undertaking or had been employed.
Table 4
Educational Background of Respondents
| Educational Background | Total Frequency (F) | Percentage (%) |
| Full-Time Student | 45 | 90% |
| Working Student | 4 | 8% |
| Scholar | 1 | 2% |
| Professional | - | - |
| Total | 50 | 100% |
Table 4 shows that among the 50 respondents, 45 of which or 90% were full-time students, four (4) or 8% were working students, and only one (1) comprising 2% was a scholar. It also shows that no respondent was a professional.
The results suggested that an average of only one (1) out of nine (9) respondents was financially independent from his family or kin. It also suggested that almost all respondents were concentrated to their academic endeavors. hence, an assumption that the respondents would have enough time in doing research. However, majority of the respondents might be assumed financially dependent to their family or kin.
On School Respondents. This profile shows the schools involved in this study. When the study was conducted, a fair share of 10 enrolled students each from the five (5) school respondents was considered a cluster sample population. This profile would also reflect the difference in the level of perception of the respondents in relation to their school of origin.
Table 5
School Respondents
| School | Total Frequency (F) | Percentage (%) |
| | 10 | 20% |
| Southwestern University | 10 | 20% |
| | 10 | 20% |
| University of the | 10 | 20% |
| University of the Visayas | 10 | 20% |
| Total | 50 | 100% |
Table 5 shows the equal distribution of respondents among the five (5) schools in
On Year Level. One of the academic determinants in this study, the year level of the respondents was gathered in order to reflect the level of perception and academic application. In relation to their academic year level, students vary in their perception towards research making and, especially, towards the purchasing of ready-made researches. This would also prove the level of possibility of purchasing the said works, since as the year level increases, the academic standards and requirements also goes along, which presupposed the assumption that students would be overloaded with requirements and deadlines that they opted to choose a work that demanded lesser effort and burden.
Year Level of Respondents per School
Figure 12 shows that all CNU respondents were freshmen. Five (5) SWU respondents were freshmen, one (1) was sophomore, and four (4) were juniors. The UC cluster had a perfect split of five (5) respondents per 3rd year level and 4th year level. The UP sample population had one (1) 5th year student, while nine (9) were senior students. Furthermore, the UV respondents were strong hold at the 4th year level. Moerover, only CNU and UV had a bulk of 10 respondents in one year level while the SWU, UC, and UP respondents were spread out to the other year levels.
Table 6
Year Level of Respondents
| Year Level | Total Frequency (F) | Percentage (%) |
| 5th Year | 1 | 2% |
| 4th Year | 24 | 48% |
| 3rd Year | 9 | 18% |
| 2nd Year | 1 | 2% |
| 1st Year | 15 | 30% |
| Total | 50 | 100% |
Table 6 shows that out of 50 respondents, 15 of which or 30% were in first year, one (1) or 2% was in second year, nine (9) or 18% were in third year, 24 or 48% were in fourth year, and one (1) or 2% was in fifth year.
It then suggested that the sample population had a majority of graduating students at 48%, which was expected since most of the school respondents offered research or thesis subjects only during the graduating 4th year students. However, it was observed that a bulk of 30% were freshmen, which suggested that the research topic was encompassing even to the 1st year level sample population. It was also a good thing that the freshmen had a say to the topic, as researching would also be part of their school requirements.
Relevance or Significance of Research Making to Students. This sub-section pertains to the individual perception of students to research making after having considered the basic profile of the respondents.
Significance of Research Making to Respondents per School
Figure 13 shows the perceptions of the respondents per school towards research making. From this, the researchers used the results as the benchmark of the significance or the impact of research making towards the respondents’ scale of interest.
As shown, most CNU respondents (5 respondents) saw research making an avenue of developing verbal skills; while the least of them (1 respondent each) thought of it as making life easier, making them socially and politically aware, broadening their knowledge on issues, discovering useful skill, and advancing their capabilities. The most of the SWU cluster (5 respondents each) saw research making an outlet of making them socio-politically aware and of widening their knowledge on issues; while the least of them (1 respondent each) saw research making improving their grammar skills and inter-personal skills. Furthermore, the most of the UC respondents (8 respondents) related researching as making them socio-politically aware of issues; while dramatically the least of them (3) related to it as making their life easier. Eight (8) of the UP respondents agreed that researching advanced their capabilities; while the least (1 respondent) made life easier. Notably, all of the UV respondents or 10 of them believed that researching developed their being resourceful; while the least of them (1 respondent each) believed that the impact of researching made life easier, made them more patient, and, dramatically, nothing at all.
Notably, three (3) respondents saw researching as having no significance or contribution to them. No school respondent, except for UV, all agreed in one option.
Table 7
Significance of Research Making to Respondents
| Rank | Options | Total Frequency (F) |
| 1 | It will broaden my knowledge on certain issues | 26 |
| 2 | It will allow me to be more socially and politically concerned | 25 |
| 3 | It will develop my being resourceful | 24 |
| 4 | It will advance my capabilities as a student | 23 |
| 5 | It will improve my ability to discover useful things | 22 |
| 6 | It will improve my skill in grammar | 17 |
| 6 | It will make me more patient | 17 |
| 6 | It will enliven my interpersonal relationship | 17 |
| 7 | It will develop my verbal things | 15 |
| 8 | It will make my life easier | 6 |
| 9 | It can do nothing to me | 3 |
Table 7 shows the relevance or significance of research making to the overall respondents in a way of determining what research making could do to them.
A simple majority or 26 respondents believed that research making broadened their knowledge in certain issues. This was followed by 25 respondents who believed that it allowed them to be more socially and politically concerned; 24 respondents who believed that it developed their being resourceful; 23 respondents, it advanced their capabilities as students; and 22 respondents, it improved their ability to discover useful things, which was fifth in rank.
Furthermore, 17 respondents believed research making improved their skills in grammar, made them more patient, and enlivened their interpersonal relationship; these were in the sixth rank. This was followed by 15 respondents who believed that it developed their verbal skills; six (6) respondents, it made their lives easier; and three (3) respondents, it could do nothing to them, which ranked the least.
Apparently, majority of the respondents believed that research making allowed them to broaden their knowledge on issues. Only few believed that research making could bring nothing to the respondents. It was also observed that the overall respondents had a common frequency in terms of the options: Research improved their grammar skills, made them more patient, and developed their interpersonal relationship and skills.
Overall, the respondents saw research making’s significance as information acquisition and awareness as well as skills enhancement. Further, few as it was, still it gave an impression that students also thought of researching as nothing at all, despite the good effects it had brought to certain facets of their student life.
Consideration of Research Making to Respondents per School
After having shown the significance of research making to the respondents, the researchers the came up with a follow-up question on how the respondents considered research as an academic undertaking in itself. Moreover, here were the results:
Figure 14 shows that seven (7) CNU respondents considered researching as a second priority; while only one (1) respondent each considered it as a first priority, least priority, just for the sake of compliance, and for the love to deal with it. Most of the SWU cluster (4 respondents) saw to consider it as a second priority; while the least consider it as a first priority, burden and waste of time, and love to deal with. The UC respondents considered it as again a second priority; while they saw it least as a last priority. The UP respondents also considered it as a second priority; while one (1) respondent each considered it a burden and waste of time, love to deal with, and notably, should not be part of the curriculum. The UV cluster considered it as both a second and least priority; while only one (1) respondent considered it as a waste of money.
Notably, only one (1) respondent each considered research making as a waste of money and that it should not be part of the curriculum. Most if not majority of the respondents per school considered it as a second priority next to their major subjects and extra-curricular activities.
As the researchers saw it, since research is indeed a non-major subject, the respondents could not be blamed for considering it as only a second priority.
Table 8
Respondents’ Consideration to Research Making
| Rank | Options | Total Frequency (F) |
| 1 | I make it second priority to my major subjects | 25 |
| 2 | I make it my first priority | 9 |
| 2 | I consider it a least priority among my subjects and extra-curricular activities | 9 |
| 3 | I love to deal with it at all times | 6 |
| 4 | I don’t take it seriously, I just do it for the sake of passing | 5 |
| 5 | I think it is a burden and waste of time | 2 |
| 6 | I believe it’s just a waste of money | 1 |
| 6 | I don’t think it is necessary so I wish it’s not part of the curriculum | 1 |
| - | I always think of it as a lousy undertaking | 0 |
| - | I don’t care for it | 0 |
Table 8 shows that 25 respondents made research making as their priority second next to their major subjects. Both second in rank were research making as first and least priority. Six (6) respondents loved to deal with it at all times, which ranked third. Five (5) respondents did not take it seriously and did it just for the sake of passing, which ranked fourth. Two (2) respondents thought of it as a burden and a waste of time, which ranked fifth. One respondent believed it was just a waste of money, which ranked sixth. Another one respondent did not think it was necessary, so he wished it was not part of curriculum. No respondent believed that it was a lousy undertaking or that they did not care for it.
Therefore, majority of the respondents prioritized research making after their major subjects. And that all respondents were not favorable of not caring about it.
Perceptions and Possibilities of Purchasing Ready-made Researches. This sub-section pertains to the perceptions and possibilities of students to purchase ready-made researches. This section does not speak of students who already purchased the researches, but on how students saw the idea of purchasing ready-made researches.
Possibility of Letting Others Do Research for Respondents per School
Figure 15 shows that a simple majority of CNU respondents would take the chance of letting others do research for them; while four (4) of them disagreed with the idea. Seven (7) SWU respondents chose to take the chance; while three (3) believed not to. The UC cluster, however, was perfectly sliced into two with one half or five (5) of them agreeing to take the chance to let others to research for them; while the other half disagreeing. The half of the UP respondents also wanted to take the chance; while three (3) of them would turn down any offer; and notably, two (2) of them were undecided on what to do. Lastly, majority or seven (7) of the UV respondents would not take the chance while three (3) would like to take it.
Standing at opposite poles, most or seven (7) of the CNU respondents would allow other person to do research for them, while each most or seven (7) of the UV respondents would turn the offer down. Notably, SWU, UC, and UP did not reach a simple majority on what to do when given the chance to let other do research for them.
Table 9
Possibility of Letting Others Do Research for the Respondents
| Options | Total Frequency (F) | Rank |
| Yes | 26 | 52% |
| No | 22 | 44% |
| No Answer | 2 | 4% |
| Total | 50 | 100% |
Table 9 shows the possibilities toward purchasing ready-made researchers. When asked, “If given the chance to let someone do research for you, would you take it?” 26 respondents answered Yes and 22 respondents answered No. There were 2 respondents, who were uncertain. Moreover, with the categorical information at hand, the researchers saw that this would reflect the possibility of indulging into the purchase of ready-made researches, given the perception per school respondents.
Perceptions of Respondents per School about Students who Purchase Ready-Made Researches
Figure 16 shows how the respondents per school perceived students who purchased or will purchase ready-made researches. The results would also adhere to the factors that lead potential buyers to purchase ready-made researches.
The CNU cluster saw that they were unconfident in research making; while one (1) respondent each perceived reasons of the potential buyers as not being taught well by teachers, not motivated by teachers, in order to do work on other requirements, and to lessen financial expenses. The SWU cluster also considered that potential buyers were not confident in researching, were taught by teachers with unpractical lessons, and to be relieved from the burden of researching. The majority or eight (8) of the UC respondents thought that potential buyers were just unconfident in doing research; while they saw that the least of potential buyer’s reasons would be to do other important requirements in school. Both the UP and UV clusters had five (5) respondents each who believed that potential buyers were both unconfident in researching and just wanted to be relieved of the burden of researching. The UP respondents saw that the least of the potentials buyer’s reason of purchasing ready-made researches was that the lessons in class were not practical and doable. For the UV respondents, the least would be: that teachers did not teach well, that lessons were not practical, that potential buyers just wanted to hasten the research task, and that they wanted to have good researches from good researchers.
Apparently, most of the respondents per school saw that potential buyers were just unconfident in research making so they opted to purchase ready-made ones.
Table 10
Perceptions of Respondents about Students who Purchase Ready-Made Researches
| Rank | Options | Total Frequency (F) |
| 1 | They are not confident in making research | 27 |
| 2 | So they be relieved of the burden of researching | 18 |
| 3 | Their teachers don’t teach that well | 9 |
| 4 | Teachers don’t motivate them to do research | 8 |
| 4 | So they can work with other important requirements | 8 |
| 4 | To hasten the research task | 8 |
| 4 | To have a good research work since it is made by good researchers | 8 |
| 5 | Research lessons taught by teachers are not practical and doable for them | 7 |
| 5 | To have good grades | 7 |
| 6 | To lessen financial expenses | 5 |
Table 10 shows the probable reasons or factors that provoked potential buyers to purchase ready-made researches.
Twenty-seven (27) respondents believed they were not confident of how to make research, which ranked first among the options. Eighteen (18) respondents reasoned out that they wanted to be relieved from the burden of researching that was why they would probably resort to letting someone do it for them. Ten (10) respondents believed that teachers did not teach that well, it ranked third. Eight (8) respondents each presumed that teachers did not motivate them to do research; that they wanted to work with other important requirements; that they wanted to hasten the research task; and that they preferred to have a good research work made by good researchers. Seven (7) respondents presumed that research lessons taught by teachers were not practicable and doable, which ranked fifth. Another seven (7) respondents reasoned out to have a good grade that was why they would probably let someone do the research for them if given a chance. Five (5) respondents wanted to lessen financial expenses, which ranked sixth.
Quite notably, financial reason was the least of the factors. This was probably because the respondents thought that ready-made researches were cheaper or affordable than doing research themselves, which was somehow or unlikely true as per the price of a ready-made research earlier presented in this chapter.
Moreover, it appeared that majority of the respondents thought that potential buyers were not confident of how to make research so they would let someone do research for them if given chance. As the researchers saw it, a low level of confidence meant that potential buyers were uneasy in applying research concepts taught in school, which then posed questions: Were the lessons of help to them? Or were the lessons well inculcated to them? These then brought the researchers to a point in question about the quality of educational instruction of the respective schools. More to the point, it was also observed that the second reason for potential buyers to purchase was that they wanted to be relieved of the burden of researching, which somehow supported the researchers’ claim that a question on quality educational instruction existed. Though the researchers still had to well establish such a theory, the quality of education would be something worth to venture, in relation to the factors that provoked potential buyers to purchase ready-made works.
Reasons Why Respondents per School Would Not Purchase Ready-made Researches
Figure 18 shows the justification of respondents per school on why they preferred not of purchase ready-made researches.
Seven (7) CNU respondents believed that they did not want ready-made researches because they wanted to have grades that deserved their efforts; while two (2) respondents each thought that they wanted to be proud that they painstakingly made their research, they wanted to measure their research capabilities, and they also wanted to apply their teachers’ lessons. The SWU cluster believed that they wanted to assure that they could answer questions about their research; while the least of them believed that that they wanted to be honest, to measure their limitations, and to apply what theirs teachers had taught. The UC respondents believed that they wanted to be proud of their research; while the least of them thought of the same with the least of the SWU cluster. The UP cluster did not want to purchase ready-made researches because they wanted to defend the research themselves; the least of them (3 respondents) would like to apply what their teachers had taught them. Lastly, seven (7) UV respondents wanted to test their research capabilities; four (4) respondents wanted to measure their limitations.
It was observed that the CNU, SWU, UC, UP, and UP respondents took up all the given options.
However, there was no common trend noticed among the school respondents’ answers. It suggested that each school indeed had a diversity of opinions set of factors that constitute their stand in doing research on their own.
Table 11
Reasons Why Respondents Would Not Purchase Ready-made Researches
| Rank | Options | Total Frequency (F) |
| 1 | To assure that I can answer questions about the research | 28 |
| 1 | To be able to defend the research my way | 28 |
| 1 | To have grades deserving of my efforts | 28 |
| 2 | To be proud that I painstakingly made my research | 25 |
| 3 | To test my research capabilities | 23 |
| 4 | To be honest | 15 |
| 5 | To measure my research limitations | 14 |
| 5 | To apply what my teacher taught | 14 |
Table 11 shows the perceptions and reasons of the overall respondents why they would not let someone do research for them if given chance.
All ranked in first, twenty-eight (28) respondents each thought that they wanted to assure that they could answer questions about the research; that they could defend the research their way; and that they could have good grades deserving of their efforts. Twenty-five (25) respondents wanted to prove that they painstakingly made their research, which ranked second. Twenty-three (23) respondents wanted to test their research capabilities; it ranked third. Fifteen (15) respondents wanted to be honest, which ranked fourth. While at the fifth and last place, fourteen (14) respondents wanted each to measure their research limitations and to apply what their teacher taught them.
Apparently, majority of the respondents thought that by doing the research themselves, they could defend the research, answer questions, and have deserving grades, which were all concepts underlying the final and most awaited stage of researching: The oral defense. The oral defense was perhaps the very reason why the respondents reasoned out in such a manner of coherence that was why they preferred to make and conduct the research themselves.
Apparently, the research oral defense is perhaps the most prepared if not rehearsed phase of the whole research process, since it is where the judgment of whether the research presented passed the standards for publication or not. Well, as to some it is whether the researcher would graduate or not.
However, the researchers believed that it was also because of the oral defense’s notorious image that a bigger chunk of the overall respondents would prefer to let others do research for them or to purchase ready-made researches rather than make their own (refer to Figure 15 and Table 9); hence, a reverse psychological effect.
Furthermore, given that the results of Tables 9, 10, and 11 were valid, one could not escape the fact that though with the notorious image of the oral defense, some potential buyers could still pass through such a phase since there is no authenticity test installed during the oral defense. The researchers saw that there was a need to establish such a test or a line of questioning that would prove the honesty and genuineness of the research defended and the researchers themselves.
CHAPTER III
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
After a thorough display of gathered data, this chapter deals with the implied findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.
FINDINGS
This section is divided into two: Findings of the discreet interviews and that of the survey questionnaires.
Discreet Interview Findings. The researchers had come up with the following findings:
1. The freelance researchers had businesses like internet, photocopy, and risograph centers to cover-up the business of ready-made researches.
2. The freelance researchers lived with their families or kin.
3. The freelance researchers had wide-range of stocked and customized researches and topics that vary in price.
4. The hot spots were located in front of or near academic institutions.
5. The freelance researchers had potential buyers from colleges and universities within
6. The hot spots were issued with Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) certificates.
Survey Questionnaire Findings. Upon the conduct of the study, the researchers tried to cover all the possible and necessary data to come up with the perceptions of college students in
The researchers found that majority of respondents belong to the age bracket of 15-19 years old. Respondents consisted mostly of male students. Majority of the respondents were singles. Most of them were full-time fourth year students.
When asked about the relevance or significance of research-making, majority of the respondents believed that research making broadened their knowledge on certain issues. However, most of them only considered research making as a second priority next to major subjects.
The researchers also found that if given the chance to let someone do research for them, majority of the respondents was favorable of taking the chance since they are not confident of how to make research. While minority of the respondents was not favorable to take the chance since they believed that by making their own research, they could defend it their way and answer questions during the oral defense.
Conclusions
Considering the results of the data gathered, the researchers concluded that the fraudulent business of ready-made researches does exist; much more, is rampant as the buyers come from various universities within
Second, majority of the student respondents, wittingly or unwittingly, agreed to let someone do the research work for them as they are not confident that they can see things through if they do the research for themselves. Also, they want to be relieved of the burden of researching.
Third, as for the fraudulent research paper itself, it is sad to note that its contents and forms passed the scrutiny of research panelists while the authenticity and honesty of the research were unseen and undetected.
Fourth, it is sad to note that school, research, and government authorities have not seen this discreet transaction under their noses, of which they have not done any extensive or encompassing move against it.
RECOMMENDATIONS
From the data gathered and the inferences made, the following recommendations were born:
For the future researchers, research of this kind should widen its perspective in terms of (1) it should gather information from the research professionals and teachers and (2) it should also multiply the range of student respondents in order to have a reliable and valid result.
For the researchers, they should have a seminar on intellectual honesty and plagiarism every before scheduled research defense of students.
For the academic heads, research teachers and directors, they should include either in the course curriculum or subject syllabus a discussion on intellectual honesty and research ethics so that student researchers will be inculcated of the importance of being authentic in every paper requirement.
For the research panelists, they should not only be keen-eyed on the forms and contents of the research presented but also on the authenticity and honesty of both the research and the researcher.
For the
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“The Filipino Norms and Ethics,” Truth; pp. 39-41
“Ethics and Filipino,” National Book Store, Inc. and Ramon B. Agapay, 1991, Volume 14, p. 154
“Introduction to Intellectual Property,”Thomas G. Field Jr.
INTERNET
“MSN Encarta Encyclopedia-Dictionary,”
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/morality.html
“Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia,”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
“Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
“The Intellectual Property Code of the
http://ipophil.gov.ph/IPCode/IPCodeMain.htm
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment